The solution is to make the living conditions and job prospects in their homeland fit for humans to thrive. Arizona could work with neighboring Mexican cities in a way that helps them realize this goal. Offering them expertise, consultation, resources, and vowing not to do business with American companies that send cheap worthless jobs to their neighborhoods. They could speak out against Maquiladora’s and NAFTA. That is how a state positively addresses the situation. American policy has a significant role in this, but I don’t see Arizona trying to fix it, or help the problem in anyway.
Instead they offer up laws that have the effect of being discriminatory to 30% of their population. It is extremely reactionary, and the only effect it can possibly have on illegal immigrants is that they will be deported only to return, or be put in jail where they will cost The Painful Truth 40,000 a year to be caged simply because they wanted to have a decent life. It can only exacerbate the problem, yet somehow a whole state is willing to turn a blind eye to it’s inveitably discriminatory effects. Something is very off about this entire discussion.
Do you know how to do that? I don’t. I don’t think anyone knows how to do that in anything like the foreseeable future.
That’s not something that a state can do, except maybe for the last. That’s something for the Feds.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect a state government to play that role.
When Massachusetts legalised gay marriage, many expected that there would be a massive influx of gay people to that state. It didn’t happen. When the Patriot Act was first passed, there were dire predictions that widespread abuses of civil and human rights would be the result. That didn’t happen. I’m willing to wait and see on this one. If people are being routinely stopped, searched and arrested even if they have broken no laws, I’ll jump ship in a heartbeat.
The present situation costs money. Again, I am willing to wait and see.
Perhaps I’m naive, but US immigration policy is currently the very definition of “naive”.
Yes, I do know how to do that, because it has been done before. Both after WWII with the Marshall plan, and recently in Europe. The EU example is more relevant because the circumstances are obviously more similar to our circumstances. Rich countries were facing industrial flight and immigration problems because of their poor neighbors, and the poor neighbors where incapable of helping themselves because they lacked resources, had widespread corruption, and were being preyed on by businesses. The relationship necessarily meant that the poor countries were exploited by the rich countries, and the citizens of the poor countries taxed the social systems of the rich countries.
The solution was to dump resources into the poor countries, and compel them to raise labor standards, environmental standards, health, safety and politcal/civil rights in exchange for those resources. This creates the conditions stable enough for world wide investment in those countries. In the case of Mexico, American subsidies to businesses willing to invest there would lead the way, and would result in quick economic growth. And Economic growth and the growth of a middle class tends to lead to more stability and the securing of civil freedoms, which would encourage more investment . And if it worked, the U.S. would have successfully opened an entire new market for it’s product.
Win - Win.
Sure they can, states do it every time an environmental disaster strikes anywhere in the world. It would require federal support in the long run, but Arizona could get things started by helping a few cities just south of the border. Hold meetings with local Mexican officials, begin to address the maquiladora’s by boycotting the companies, making it publicly known, and introducing legislation. Offer police consultation and financial resources. All these things are within the scope of possibilities for Arizona.
Why not? It’s largely a local problem, or atleast it’s a far greater problem for border states, is it asking too much for them to take the lead on this? It is their issue more than anyone else.
It did happen, and is still happening. I can give you a list of items on command.
Whoa…the Marshall Plan…those countries already knew how to get it done - they had educated workforces and traditionally more robust economies than Mexico ever has. You bet that the EU plan is more relevant. But the EU countries also had and have something like reasonable guest worker programs. So yes, if we are going to reform immigration law as well as invest in Mexico, there’s a shot. But similar programs are vital if this is going to work in North America. Just show me how this is going to get done, politically. I realise that this is a practical, and not theoretical concern. But the problem is that we have a practical problem and a lot of “theoretical” objections to any solutions.
What i mean is this - as long as Conservatives talk out of both sides of their mouths on immigration, we won’t make any progress. A plan such as you propose requires at least these:
Political conservatives recognise that we need Mexican Labor.
Political conservatives recognise that they own most of the businesses that need this labor.
Politically conservative politicians stop making this about The American Way of Life and start making it about dollars and cents.
Political conservatives stop claiming that every time “someone else” gains, The American People lose.
Political liberals stop insisting that every creature that walks to Earth (and every inhabitant of the US, however temporary) become a ward of the State.
So, okay - I’m not discounting such a plan. I just don’t see the political will on a national level to do this.
I may have overstated my point, but I’m talking from the point of view of the Arizona state government.
We’re not talking about a few cases of bottle water and some bandaids. The Mexican police don’t need consultation, they need a smidgen of integrity, a raise, helicopters and kevlar.
It’s national immigration policy that makes so many needed workers illegal to begin with. It’s a local problem in about a gazillion locations. The knee bone is connected to the thigh bone in this case.
Sure. Give me lists, links - whatever you got. Up until a week or so ago, I watched MSNBC every night. But if there’s something I have missed, I’m willing to be educated.
Ask yourself why Latinos are so desperate to immigrate to America and such high proportions of blacks end up in US prisons and then we might be getting somewhere. Don’t hate the player, hate the game - or words to that effect…
In the UK we have a similar issue with the stop-and-search powers given to the police as part of the attempt to prevent terrorism; figures show that these powers are used almost exclusively against ethnic minorities. Now, you might make the case that “white folk don’t blow up tube trains” but that clearly isn’t a universally accurate point-of-view and eventually the exercise of that particular power will end up becoming counter-productive - for example, by encouraging a lack of trust in the police amongst certain sectors of society.
Clearly there has to be some kind of discrimination in scenarios such as these but that discimination needs to be subtle and balanced by more progressive action, such as involving legal Latino immigrants in the exercise of such powers.
The Marshall plan is the example par excellance of what dumping money into shaky economies and political climates can do. Europe was devastated economically, politically, and in term of infrastructure, yet in 4 years it exceeded pre war levels. I think the most significant factor contributing to this is that their economy naturally developed after WW2 in conformance with full participation in the world economy. This is a critical lesson, and is basically the goal with the EU plan and any plan for Mexico. Make it so their economies naturally mesh or conform with the economies of the dominant world actors, and the functional relationship between the two is no longer exploitation but partnership. The only way this occurs is by directing their economy in a way that it will naturally produce a significant middle class consumer class that is protected by civil liberties.
This or something very similar is the only permanent solution. Anything else is going to be a hodgepodge of reaction and half hearted measures more concerned with political gain and American middle class peace of mind than anything. I mean the whole idea of trying to address the problem of immigration by addressing the symptoms is ludicrous. This law specifically can only have the functional effect of costing those who immigration already taxes even more. Jail time and deportation is all this law does, well that an discriminate against 30% of Arizona, and neither of those is a solution or an acceptable plan of action. It amplifies the cost of illegal immigration on both sides.
Or on the state level in Arizona, which suggests something fishy is going on. Like they are not concerned with solving the problem, only concerned with convincing TPT that they are. When in fact the law can only exacerbate the social and economic costs of illegal immigration.
The point is that states are capable of providing economic support and expertise to countries all over the world based on their needs, why it is presumed that they cannot do this for Mexican cities a few miles across the border is beyond me. It probably has never been done like this, but their is no all encompassing reason why it can’t be done. Next time a police department upgrades its computers or cars or whatever, would it really be so unbelievable to give a Mexican city government the old equipment? Is it really so unbelievable that an American expert can consult with Mexican officers on counter-drug tactics ect. These are positives steps, but are not intended to be the final resolution, only a move toward it.
Yes, and one of those locals is the State of Arizona. I, however, dont’ see them trying to shore up political support for any positive policies, instead I see them alienating the rest of America with reactionary policies that can only exacerbate the problem.
I’m sure you’re familiar with the catch-all of “security threat” that secures secrecy for everything the government does, and I’m sure you know this limits the specifics with which one can identify abuses. One cannot expose what the government is doing, because one cannot take the government to court over it on a general basis, but only on specifics, and any time a specific case is brought it is deemed a “security risk” and closed. A real life Catch-22. So for the most part we must rely on incidental evidence. Like the fact that FISA warrants have gone up from around 900 a year to 2000 a year, the issuance of National Security letters has gone from 9,000 a year to 50,000-60,000 a year and the legal standard was reduced by PATRIOT ACT. The patriot act expanded under what circumstances banks have to report suspicious activity, and reports have gone from less than 200,000 a year to over 1.3 million a year. All of these represent a raise in the level of government monitoring of citizens and a reduction of the legal justification for said monitoring.
And then we have things like warantless wiretapping, where we know that they’re doing it because the NSA was granted unlimited access to certain types of communication, but we cannot prove it in court because it is always a matter of “national security”. Well, it was untill a few months ago when we were finally, after dozens of tries, able to get it ruled on a by a court. Ofcourse it was ruled illegal.
Anyway, you get the point. Expect a flood of these types of cases over the next few years, as we slowly start to piece together exactly what the PATRIOT ACT was doing and to who.
Firstly, every partnership is a mutual exploitation. When you say “Make it so their economies naturally mesh or conform with the economies of the dominant world actors,” - that’s one thing when the countries you’re talking about used to be the dominant world actors and another when it’s a country full of third-world fruitpickers and educationless, jobless peasants. Mexico’s economy isn’t “shaky” - it’s medieval. In other words, there’s a difference between restoring a middle class and creating one.
How many trillions would you invest, over how long a period of time? It would require at least as long as it takes immigrants to assimilate here - roughly a generation.
I think Arizona is trying to solve their own problem and not Mexico’s. It will cost many orders of magnitude less than you Marachal Plan.
Computers and cars.
That’s all I got for that.
I just don’t think you realise the extent of the problem.
“Positive” is in the eye of the beholder. Most of America doesn’t even care.
As for the Patriot Act, you just don’t have the goods. Sure - if you lower the dollar amount of a bank transaction that has to be reported, more will be reported. That in itself does not show that anyone’s civil rights, even vis-a-vis the old standards, were violated. I didn’t check the link. Will do so later tonight.
Again I will note that I know we need Mexican labor, and the reason so many are illegal is, in large part, because the immigration quotas are just too low, given the need we have for that labor. I think the answer is a guest worker program - more flexible than a ten-year visa. I think we should build the wall all the way across the border. OOps - gotta go.
Mexico’s freedom house designation is free, and it is one of only a dozen or so trillion dollar economies. Anyway, I want to discuss political science, not folksy truisms, so I’m done.
Like that Europe returned to its former status by returning it to its former status.
And “something fishy” is going on, and the Patriot Act is evil, but part of the evil is that we don’t know what that evil is. And we should give some old General Motors cars to the Mexican police.
You almost had me until you suggested that GM cars were going to help anybody do anything.
The US needs to do three thinks immediately: enforce the border strictly, streamline the legal immigration process/quotas, and issue/enforce work visas. If we did that, i.e. if the federal government was doing its job, Arizona wouldn’t need 1070. Would discrimination be an issue if the flood across the border was cut to a trickle? But then the short sighted Democrats would loose all those Spanish speaking voters and businessmen (Dems & Reps) would loose a lot of cheaper labor.
We need Mexican labor - in varying amounts in varying times, which is why I think that a more flexible guest worker program is part of the equation.
I think we have to move away from what is often a moral view - or at least a romanticised view - of immigration (or of immigrants), and begin to understand that we have to satisfy our own economic needs first and that immigration policy should be pursuant to that and not to any supposed rights that citizens of another country have here.
It sounds “hardline” I know, but this is a very difficult set of problems that Arizona faces.